All laughing aside it's amazing to me that this sort of reasoning (you can vote them out) is really offered by anyone with more than a junior high education. I mean even ignoring the "stickiness" of so many elected officials (at all levels)...to say nothing of the actual appointed career bureaucrats who are managing most of the regulating...there's this annoying little bit that if someone really fucks up...you're stuck with them for (at least) couple of years...and longer if there are enough people who don't realize he's fucked up...or they think the alternative will fuck up even more!

In the market...someone screws me...in 99% of my transactions I'm not stuck with the result for that long. In fact there's a real irony here that many leftists who play the "just vote them out in a couple years" card are also the first to shout "there oughta be a law" preventing the cell phone companies from locking you into a 2-year contract! They're also the first ones to support things like amending contracts after the fact (e.g., mortgage adjustments).

If the regulators are private business, we'd love to say it's the consumer, but once again, the answer is often... The lobbyists, and more often than not... Nobody.

Actually...often it is the consumers. A business without customers is...well a hobby. A business must ultimately please its customers or go out of businesses. Ironically, when government fails at somethings we usually get more of it!

Actually...often it is the consumers. A business without customers is...well a hobby. A business must ultimately please its customers or go out of businesses. Ironically, when government fails at somethings we usually get more of it!

Often it is. And obviously, if someone like, for instance, British Petroleum, were to cause an 'accident' I'm sure every consumer would suddenly stop using their product... Oh, wait...

Well, at least I'll be able to choose to stop using that milk powder I've been using now that they started adding heaps of melamine to save on production costs. My dead child will rest easy knowing I was smart enough to vote with my wallet.

Often it is. And obviously, if someone like, for instance, British Petroleum, were to cause an 'accident' I'm sure every consumer would suddenly stop using their product... Oh, wait...

Is it comfortable living in the world of extreme and exceptional examples like this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Well, at least I'll be able to choose to stop using that milk powder I've been using now that they started adding heaps of melamine to save on production costs. My dead child will rest easy knowing I was smart enough to vote with my wallet.

Why did you buy and consume the milk powder without any assurance it was safe? Maybe a better question is (since I'm guessing you didn't actually buy any of this milk powder and give it to your kid)...would you buy any product that you ingested without some assurance of its safety and fitness for use?

A second question: Do you think, in the normal course of things, most businesses deliberately try to do things that injure, maim, sicken or kill their customers?

if it makes them more money and they think they can get away with it, yes, sometimes they do. Sad, but true. But more often than that, they do things that result in injury because of ignorance or complacency about the safety of changes they make.

Do you think the Chinese farmers meant for the watermelons to explode? Do you think the milk companies meant for babies to die? Do you think that your neighborhood deli meant for the rat droppings to make their customers sick?

Assuming that your answer is "no"...in the absence of reliable information about the safety of the product...do you think other people might do the same? Do you think the company selling the product might realize this? Do you think, in the normal course of things, most businesses deliberately try to do things that injure, maim, sicken or kill their customers?

Do you think the Chinese farmers meant for the watermelons to explode?

Nope. They made a mistake that has cost them a lot. They probably won't do it again. Though they might make other mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Do you think the milk companies meant for babies to die?

I don't know. Probably not though. But they thought they would get away with it. But I'm focusing on the consumer reaction to products in the market. You seem to assume that companies put products out there and people are somehow compelled to buy them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Do you think that your neighborhood deli meant for the rat droppings to make their customers sick?

That hasn't happened in my neighborhood. But I'll go with your hypothetical: Probably not. But they thought they would get away with it. But I'm focusing on the consumer reaction to products in the market. How will consumers react to this? How will competitors react to it?

if it makes them more money and they think they can get away with it, yes, sometimes they do. Sad, but true. But more often than that, they do things that result in injury because of ignorance or complacency about the safety of changes they make.

Do you think the Chinese farmers meant for the watermelons to explode? Do you think the milk companies meant for babies to die? Do you think that your neighborhood deli meant for the rat droppings to make their customers sick?

We need more regulation because if the fines are less than the cost savings in cutting corners, well, they STILL BREAK THE LAW and fuck the consumer.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

It's so nice that all of the stupid people of the world have you to look out for them.

And you continue to avoid the questions.

How on Earth is that arrogant? I have said nothing comparing myself to others. Actually, my statement here is from the perspective of humility, not arrogance. I'm honest and humble enough to admit that we, as human beings, myself included, are neither smart enough, responsible enough or honest enough to be trusted to work under any system that presumes honesty, empathy and intelligence for it to work.

Being honest about the fact that human beings make mistakes, sometimes repeatedly, is realism, not arrogance. Any system that works has to work in that context.

For the purposes of CAFE, a manufacturer's car output is divided into a domestic fleet (vehicles with more than 75 percent U.S., Canadian or post-NAFTA Mexican content) and a foreign fleet (everything else). Each of these fleets must separately meet the requirements. The two-fleet requirement was developed by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) as a means to ensure job creation in the US. The UAW successfully lobbied Congress to write this provision into the enabling legislation and continues to advocate this position.[18] The two fleet rule for light trucks was removed in 1996.

But that's just a blip. Government regulation is always good and right and saves us from nonunion jobs.

How on Earth is that arrogant? I have said nothing comparing myself to others.

Fair enough. I assumed something here that was not explicitly stated. So, then you would buy products to ingest without any assurance they were safe and fit for their stated use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Being honest about the fact that human beings make mistakes, sometimes repeatedly, is realism, not arrogance. Any system that works has to work in that context.

Well I certainly agree. However, I find it interesting that you appear to frequently attribute mistakes in business to actual evil intent.

But let's get back to what you would do in the market where products are provided. For the sake of simplicity, let's just focus on ingestible products (food, drugs, etc.): Would buy products to ingest without any assurance they were safe and fit for their stated use?

To answer your yes or no question, since I don't trust the permanence nor accuracy of testing and compliance certification self-administered by te business community, without government regulation, I would absolutely be forced to.

In other words, businesses would be using force to make me accept whatever their testing procedure happens to be.

To answer your yes or no question, since I don't trust the permanence nor accuracy of testing and compliance certification self-administered by te business community, without government regulation, I would absolutely be forced to.

Would buy products to ingest without any assurance they were safe and fit for their stated use? Yes or no?

If the above answer is actually "yes" and that you would be "forced to" why would you be forced to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

In other words, businesses would be using force to make me accept whatever their testing procedure happens to be.

To answer your yes or no question, since I don't trust the permanence nor accuracy of testing and compliance certification self-administered by te business community, without government regulation, I would absolutely be forced to.

In other words, businesses would be using force to make me accept whatever their testing procedure happens to be.

So you trust government but not business. the same government that is "in the pocket of business". Interesting.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

So you trust government but not business. the same government that is "in the pocket of business". Interesting.

Until there's a third option of government less controlled by the business lobby, yes, I'd much rather choose government partially (or even mostly) controlled by business than business controlled by nothing but profit margins.

Ok, give an example of being forced. That might clear up this supposition argument.

If we want to go to the cinema these days, we're forced to watch shitty movies with gunfights, explosions and car chases every thirty seconds, because there are no longer any other kinds of movies in the market!

But on a serious note, if not for government intervention, we would be forced to use Windows right now. You can't tell me that the Microsoft near monopoly was DUE TO the government, as that was a lie before, and it would be a lie now.

In fact, quite honestly, many of us are forced to use Windows at work now.

By the way, the government only FORCES you to pay taxes the way a restaurant FORCES you to pay for the food you just ate. You don't want to pay for that food from that restaurant? Fine, go to another restaurant before you eat their food. You don't want to pay taxes in the United States? Fine. Go to another country before you earn a living in the United States. No one is FORCING you to earn a living here, just like no one is FORCING you to go to a particular restaurant.

But on a serious note, if not for government intervention, we would be forced to use Windows right now. You can't tell me that the Microsoft near monopoly was DUE TO the government, as that was a lie before, and it would be a lie now.

In fact, quite honestly, many of us are forced to use Windows at work now.

I thought you said you were going to be serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

By the way, the government only FORCES you to pay taxes the way a restaurant FORCES you to pay for the food you just ate.

Under a free market system, the farming megaconglomerate has bought all the smaller dairies. They have hired a company to do their testing. We don't know how much of that company they own, because there are no investment transparency regulations. A local university has tested their product independently, and found it to contain a substantial amount of melamine. The 'testing company' denies these new findings. The university suddenly reverses their findings a month later, and said their results were in error. I'd like to buy another brand of milk, but all milk products on the market are from the same company. I don't have space in my backyard for a cow.